In December, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), part of U.S. Department of Transportation, proposed to amend commercial driver’s license (CDL) regulations for drivers who transport jet fuel used for agricultural operations.

Currently, drivers delivering jet fuel are required to have a hazardous materials (HM) endorsement in addition to basic CDL qualifications. The change would allow transport by commercial drivers who don’t have the HM endorsement. This would be limited, applying only to fuel shipments up to 1,000 gallons. And, importantly, a decision to change would be voluntary within each state; regulators could choose to make the change or keep the status quo.

Many farm operations rely on aircraft to apply pesticides or fertilizers. Agricultural aviation companies often need to deliver aircraft fuel to staging areas distant from their headquarters. In remote, rural areas, it can be difficult to find CDL holders who also have hazardous materials endorsements. Plus, these deliveries are intermittent. Drivers with hazardous materials certifications usually have steadier employment.

The National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) has been seeking this transportation change for 20 years. NAAA represents approximately 1,900 members in 46 states. NAAA supports the interests of small business owners and pilots licensed as professional commercial aerial applicators.

In 2018, NAAA resubmitted a petition seeking transport changes for jet fuel. The petition focused on two critical aspects.

One, NAAA pointed out that an exception exists for the transport of diesel fuel, again, with conditions: it’s a state option, it’s limited to quantities below 1,000 gallons, a driver must remain in-state and work within four agriculture related business categories: custom harvesters, an agrichemical business, a farm retail outlet and supplier or a livestock feeder.

Since diesel fuel and jet fuel are similar, with similar demands for safety and handling, it’s not unreasonable, NAAA asserted, to grant the same flexibility for jet fuel. The expanded allowance for diesel was authorized within federal transportation legislation in 2015 and approved by FMCSA in 2016. There is a precedent, then, to consider the same moves for jet fuel.

Second, NAAA emphasized safety, that a change would not compromise roadway safety. After all, trips to staging areas are infrequent and in remote areas. And, since the fuel is for airborne operations dependent on favorable weather, transport, too, would be during favorable conditions.

The change would make it easier on ag aviation businesses. The federal proposal explains that fueling, mixing and loading of crop-protection products (e.g., fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, or herbicides) are normally conducted at an operator’s headquarters, sites with permanent tanks and facilities. However, for distant applications, it’s sometimes more cost-effective to use a satellite landing strip and an on-site fuel truck.

That’s difficult, though, if trucks and drivers are not available. Then, pilots start their work but must fly back to headquarters to refuel. These back-and-forth flights reduce the time available to treat crops and waste fuel, since if a truck were available, the plane could refuel at the staging area. Hence the need for drivers.

Procedurally, this issue has moved slowly. Recall that NAAA’s petition was filed in 2018. It wasn’t until four years later, however, in December 2022, that FMCSA decided that the 2018 petition had merit. Then, it took FMCSA another two years – until December 2024 – to restart its work on a jet fuel allowance.

In its current notice, FMCSA explains, that after a review of the diesel allowance, that it does not appear that other fuels were intentionally excluded from a similar flexibility. Again, it notes the close properties between diesel and jet fuels. FMCSA cites a nationwide survey of its own safety and enforcement teams which did not show new risks and challenges after the diesel change. It notes further that basic CDL training includes instruction in safety, emergency response and security. This training, FMCSA writes, “is very similar to the training required to obtain the HM endorsement.”

It concludes: the new flexibility for jet fuel is reasonable.

This proposed change is open for public comment until Feb. 3. At this writing, there are no comments opposing the change. One set of comments is from the Arkansas Trucking Association which writes that it “strongly supports this effort,” citing the following benefits:

- Diesel fuel and jet fuel have the same emergency response requirements found in the Emergency Response Guidebook;

- Normally these fuels are hauled in rural areas and within about a 50-mile radius;

- Gains in efficiency and reduced carbon footprint since pilots will no longer need to fly back to their base to refuel; and,

- It increases the available driver pool.

During past efforts, opposition came from a number of groups and states, including the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, based in Washington, D.C., an advocacy group active on trucking and safety.

Safety agencies in Ohio, Missouri and Virginia have opposed a jet fuel allowance. The states contend that an exemption would allow transport of materials that exceed various hazardous definitions. Plus, it would allow drivers to avoid two hazardous materials requirements – completing a written test for the hazardous materials endorsement and “a determination by the Transportation Security Administration that the driver is ‘not a security threat.’’’ The states noted that NAAA did not propose an alternative method to assess a driver’s knowledge and skills.

In the recent December notice, FMCSA writes that it is aware of states’ concerns. But it notes that most exempted trips will be within a 50-mile radius of a permanent facility and that discrepancies among sstate requirements will be uncommon. It notes further that 16 of the 50 states chose to grant the exemption for diesel and that it’s likely that “states with economies heavily dependent on agriculture would be most likely to exercise a jet fuel exemption.” It comments that since operations almost always occur in favorable weather, that, too, helps to lower risk.

FMCSA seeks comments on a number of related issues. It asks, for example, whether the change would cause “additional burdens” for licensing and law enforcement agencies. It asks how many satellite airstrips might become available if the proposal were approved. Finally, it asks about money, particularly insights about how much money ag aviation operators lose because of the driver-fuel problem.

When asked about their timeline, FMSCA staff said next steps will follow their review and analysis of the public comments. They said to watch for the next iteration of this topic in either the spring or fall, when federal agencies are required to prepare proposed six-month agendas.

To comment on this issue, go to Regulations.gov and type FMCSA-2024-0121 in the search bar.